Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sentient Data Access

Posted by michael on from the knows-when-you've-been-bad-or-good dept.

CowboyRobot writes "From Queue comes a piece subtitled Why doesn't your data know more about you? From the article: 'It has been more than ten years since such information appliances as ATMs and grocery store UPC checkout counters were introduced. ... A common language for these devices has not been standardized, nor have current database solutions sufficiently captured the complexities involved in correctly expressing multifaceted data. ... As computing devices expand from the status-quo keyboard and desktop to a variety of form factors and scales, we can imagine workplaces configured to have a society of devices, each designed for a very specific task. As a whole, the collection of devices may act much like a workshop in the physical world, where the data moves among the specialized digital stations. For our society of devices to operate seamlessly, a mechanism will be required to (a) transport data between devices and (b) have it appear at each workstation, or tool, in the appropriate representation.'"

6 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Verge of Future? by landrocker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, today are we getting excited about tech converging (eg. your phone+camera+pim+kitchen-sink) or are we getting excited about the tech diverging into hundreds of specialised interconnected devices?

    With all the 'innovation' these days it's getting hard to keep track ;)

    Landrocker

  2. perhaps a good thing? by joethebastard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i'm not an expert on the subject.... but, at least in the case of devices like ATMs, which have fairly simple tasks, how would we benefit from a standardized language? i put my PIN in, money comes out, my bank account balance goes down. the elegance of the code behind it doesn't concern me.

    i know that "security through obscurity" is a cheesy solution, but i can't help thinking that if every ATM in the country had the same architecture, the system as a whole would be more prone to hacks and abuse. what do you think?

  3. Middlemen by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What you have described is modern day bartering... everyone has their own unit of measurement and everyone is willing to negotiate.

    Until the marketplace demands a standard, businesses will continue this behavior because it is more profitable in the near term... individuals almost always pay more than conglomerates which is the nature of a trading company who can with 'purchasing power' lower the price for goods or services. So as long as the companies are dealing 'direct' with you the consumer, they can ask for whatever service charge you can bare as an individual... compared to credit unions who get much much better deals as an organization.

    So basically it's in all companies best interest to avoid organized clientelle or employees as long as possible in order to maximize profits from low overhead and high margins. Information technology doesn't change this strategy it just adds new levels of complexity.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  4. Re:Slashot Personal Ads! by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And then the ATM tells the break and enter punk behind you in line that you're likely to be out that evening.

    And I hate to think about spam that follows you around. Every damned ATM or wall display just has to publically tell you about those magic bean^w^w blue pills that you opt'ed-in to receive messages about.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  5. Re:The implications... by svanstrom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's exactly what you want...

    Your cellphone knows about what you've been looking at online, then when you're walking by stores it checks their websites (using bluetooth, and their bluetooth-AP) to see if there's anything there that you might be interested in.

    The cellphone doesn't hand out the information to let the server do the thinking, so there are no securityrisks (of that kind) and you can always slap a bayesian filter on the whole thing to make sure that it learns what you're looking at online but aren't interested in IRL (let it be the "always" cheaper computerparts or electric plastic sheep)...

    --
    perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
  6. What a poor pretentious article by rcastro0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anybody try to read the article ? Holy, that is the type of logic that drove me away from social sciences. And the authors seem to be computer science guys !

    Let's see what this is all about:

    1) FIND AN OBVIOUS TREND
    We think microprocessors are spreading everywhere, and see/predict they doing a lot of things, including communication

    2) GIVE IT A SOPHISTICATED SOUNDING NAME
    I think I will call it... UbiComp (ubiquitous computing)!.

    3) ELABORATE ON WHAT NAMED TREND WILL IMPLY
    Computers will be everywhere. People will talk to them. They will talk to people... they will talk with each other ! (claps)

    4) WRITE ABOUT WHY IMPLICATIONS DIDN'T HAPPEN
    "New forms of interaction must be developed for this environment (...)"

    5) PEPPER IT ALL WITH UNBEARABLY OBSCURE PHRASES
    "Thoughts exchanged by one another are not the same in one room as in another. This includes "thoughts" exchanged between people and/or machines, and implies that behavior is sensitive to location, and as a consequence of mobility, must adapt to changes in physical and social location." Make sure you make references to lots of other authors and experts.

    6) RELEASE TEXT TO A "WANT TO LOOK INTELLECTUAL" AUDIENCE
    Which will pretend this is the smartest piece of writing ever, and the uninitiated simply are just not smart enough to understand.

    No thanks, I think I can do without concepts like UbiComp.

    --
    Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.